Quote:
Originally Posted by Truth-Bringer";p="
Quote:
Originally Posted by ashideena";p="
Wrong, theft is simply the act or instance of stealing. Theft does not require force. If I stole a car from you, and you weren't even there, no force was used. Your definition of theft needs serious review. Under a normal definition of theft, if you use public roads, and don't pay taxes, you are stealing. Straight up. Here are some sources for the definition of theft.
http://www.answers.com/topic/theft
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/theft
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/theft
Hmmm, it seems I can't find a definition of theft that fits with yours. Get over your force fetish, please. |
Wrong again. But while it's true that theft need not be carried out by force, it is still immoral if done via fraud or deception or implied consent. By the way, government is also committing theft by deception in regards to debauching the fiat currency. The dollar has constantly lost value since the institution of the Federal Reserve.
And 4Liberty is right. It is your definition that needs clarity. Do a little research on crimes committed under color of law.
"To lay, with one hand, the power of the government on the property of the citizen, and with the other to bestow it upon favored individuals to aid private enterprises and build up private fortunes, is none the less robbery because it is done under the form of law and is called taxation. This is not legislation. It is a decree under legislative forms." - Citizen's Savings & Loan Assn v. Topeka, 87 U.S. 655, 664
"To take a man's property without his consent is robbery; and to assume his consent where no consent is given, makes the taking none the less robbery. If it did not, the highwayman has the same right to assume a man's consent to part with his purse, that any other man, or body of men, can have. And his assumption would afford as much moral justification for his robbery as does a like assumption, on the part of the government, for taking a man's property without his consent. The government's pretense of protecting him, as an equivalent for the taxation, affords no justification. It is for himself to decide whether he desires such protection as the government offers him. If he does not desire it, or does not bargain for it, the government has no more right, than any other insurance company to impose it upon him, or make him pay for it." - Lysander Spooner, "Trial by Jury" |
Niiiiiice, Truth Bringer. Living up to your handle on here. Just for those who don't know, Lysander Spooner was a Boston attorney in the 19th Century; a fiery abolitionist, and a staunch defender of individual rights. He wrote with a clarity of mind and purposeful pen that revealed a vast intellect. Government advocates (for instance, the so-called social contract) really hated hearing such clear-headed thinking such as his. He saw government for what it was---and is.
He was also a business man, he once ran a private postal service between Boston and New York. It ran so efficiently, he undersold the US Postal Service. In fact, he liked to say (with a lot of justification) that he was the target of the government's eventually successful efforts to shut down private postal services. Even today, the stamp placed on letters for his service is so common among collectors of such that it doesn't fetch a huge price.
He practiced law in both Ohio and Massachussetts, where he passed away in 1882. In writing many of his essays, he clearly refuted the claims of numerous justifications for government violation of individual rights. Truth Bringer just quoted one of my favorite works of his, another was "Vices are not crimes." His best known was called, "The Constitution of no authority." It is in this one he refuted your social contract theory, some of those arguments I just used in my prior post, and another Truth Bringer used in hers, Ashideena.
Try hard as you might to justify taxing with no recognized limits, all have failed to come near demonstrating any real justification not based on a myth. There are better ways to finance the real functions of a government, like user fees and perhaps Jefferson's way---tariffs. Uniform ones.
You might read my signature at the bottom, here. That, too, is a sign of clear headed thinking. It's why I believe so fiercely in specifically limited government. It's why I'm a Libertarian.